For whom do you play ?

[Mayla]

Hi everybody who takes the time to read this   .

I have been thinking on this thing for probably a few years now, and I finally can articulate it (kind of a big thing for me)!

I find that when I have somebody to truly share "my" music with, it matters more to me how I prepare it.  I feel very guilty about this, however, because the purist in me says that....

1.  I should treat it with equal care and consideration no matter what
2.  I should love playing just as much even if it is only for the spiders and crickets in the walls of the room
3.  You know... all of that stuff

I can't help but feel as though I am perhaps missing something essential if I am so tied to wanting more to share it than put so much work in and simply keep it to myself.  I think maybe it is just fear or something....

Anyway, Ted's posts have stricken me along these lines because it seems to me that Ted takes more joy "simply" in the sounds and the acts of creating them on the instrument than preparing it for any one thing (please forgive if I am offending in any way).  It is so pure to me and fascinating, essential I believe.  But, I also want to share this purity with people and this very desire seems to change things.

It is a moral dilemma I have.  I do not wish to be "selfish" (it is simply how it makes me feel) yet I want to stay pure.

Do people have thoughts on this subject? 

Mayla

[anda]

i'm not sure i can understand correctly & completely your post, so i'll just answer your topic question: for anybody. i don't care if they're musicians or amateurs or even ignorants, all i care is that they listen to what i have to say (play) - i mean, that's why they came, right? truth is, and i am ashamed to admit it in front of anybody who has heard me live, i play better on stage - i mean, this is as good as it gets, i don't even have the excuse "i played poorly because i'm afraid to get on stage, but i'm actually better than this".

i like playing on stage, i feel great (though my hands are shaking and my blood pressure is somewhere around 200), and i guess the simple fact that i really want to be there, i really want to play, i love the work i'm playing (i never play works i can't have a personal relation with) and i want so bad for everybody to see how wonderful this work is that i end up playing quite well (compared to myself, of course)

you say you play better for professionists. i don't, and that's probably because i focus on emotional (vs. intellectual) level relations with the audience. the most important thing for me is that anybody who  has been in the hall should be moved somehow, should feel something.

just one more thing (and this is the reason i almost never participated in competitions): i can't play to a hostile/frozen audience, i need an audience emotionally available, i need to play to people willing to accept the present i have for them - a wonderful work. of course anybody is free to hate my playing - but not a priori.

i hope i didn't digress too much

[Mayla]

No no, you did not digress at all.  This is actually an exact thing I was after even if I was unclear (sometimes I really don't know if I am or not).  I appreciate very much your feedback.

[jason2711]

Generally, I change who i play for should the situation demand it.  Since I tend to spend long hours in an empty house playing the piano away, i've learnt to cope without an audience.  However, even in competitions, i play to make both the audience and adjudicator identify with my playing and appreciate it, and that includes any musical 'illiterate' there as well.  Even if they are supposed to take a cold view on it, any adjudicator or examiner that is taken away by what you play is going to be impressed.  Although this rarely happens for me (but when it does, its great ) i tend to play to the music, and just use it as an opportunity to unleash those hidden emotions inside, so even if its downstairs on my home piano after school or in a public performance, i'll make sure i enjoy it.  Generally enjoyment is felt by the audience when you perform.  If you're loosing the enjoyment factor, either take a break or start new pieces which you can identify with/ feel.

When playing in front of my non-musical school friends, i would have generally played to impress, using virtuosic passages to show off.  Now I've learnt that whatever I play will impress them (except the ones who think that the piano is stupid... heathens), so i play what i want to play, rather than think i know what they want to here.

[dlu]

Who do I play for?
Myself

[vivacelife]

Who do I play for?
The music itself. Respect the music and play it as best as you could.

[lostinidlewonder]

I play for several reasons. For living people and the dead I think it is a good sign of respect for the composers if you play their music. I imagine sometimes, it is so interesting that what we play now, the composer himself/herself also did something similar many years back with their own fingers. It is like, a frozen space of time on a piece of sheet music. And when we explore that on our lonesome piano practing journey, we are opened to a channel of the composers life and the actualy physical action that they where experimenting with and created in their music at that time.
To me, that fact is awesome and amazing.

I also feel that music has a close connection with Emotion/Spirituality. The mind and soul cannot help but be effected! So in that case, i always play for God, as a form of worship, even if the peices played have mortal stories behind it, the sound of music always seems to stretch into that plane of godlyness. I guess, those that experience shivers down the spine when they hear something amazing, that is the experience i am trying to emphasise. What insipres that feeling? It is a rush of emotion, something outside of the body maybe casues it.

I insipre myself many times to master music and carry on because i know what i play i will be playing for thousands of staring eyes in the future. So i better do a good job of it while i study, so when i study often i have thoughts of how will this be done in concert, and how can i make it good for the audience. So they are physically not with me while i study, but i know that eventually they will be, to see the end result of all my study.

If you have a piano buddy who you can regulary meet up with and jam with on the piano that is an amazing friendship to develop! Advertising in local papers is great for that. You could also organise weekly or monthly get togethers of a group of musicians in your city/town. Food/drinks whatever, and rotate that though the group of people as to which house you will be doing it at.

You find that you will insipre each other to learn more. I keep saying to all my students, the more musicians you know and make friends with, the better you will become! It is the same in life i guess, the more you mix with people who teach you good stuff the more it will rub off onto you.

But with music you are never alone. The music itself is a being!

[timothy42b]

I think this question is far more profound that it might appear at first glance.

There can be so many levels to the response - but I'm out of time today.

One thought though:  the idea that pianists play mostly alone, and hardly ever, maybe never for an audience, is really unique to piano.  No other instrument I'm aware of has this concept and I'm still struggling to understand what I hear on this forum.  Trombonists (I am one and know many) practice mostly because they wouldn't be able to gig with out it; it is a means to an end.  The solitary trombonist, perfecting his skills in the practice room while never intending to play at dances, win a symphony audition, jam at the club, or do concerts in the park - just doesn't exist. 

more thoughts, but I've got to run. 

[ted]

Hello Mayla,
                      Firstly yes, I am a very different sort of pianist and musician. I have a psyche completely incompatible with performance, and my musical aesthetic is very different from normal to say the least. However, I have always known myself pretty well, and decided very early in life that I would remain an amateur (against the advice of some) and support my creative musical freedom by earning my living in another way. The years have proved this decision correct.

Over the years I have been the object of much rebuke from relations and friends, firstly because they see me as a massive under-achiever (in other things than music too) and secondly because they consider me selfish. To the first charge I plead guilty in the pragmatic sense but I refute the second. I have as much desire to share and exchange ideas as the next person. However, the usual, and more social, channels of musical activity are not open to me. I find performance thoroughly repulsive, and to attempt to write out the sort of musical ideas I have takes roughly a hundredfold of the time it takes to create them. It is largely a matter of common sense. Do I want to leave a pile of scores behind on the slim chance some people in fifty years time may enjoy them ?  I don’t think so. Do I want to expend enormous and embarrassing efforts of self-promotion trying to force my music onto people ? Again, what on earth for ?

I do make lots of private recordings; I do write out the occasional piece – if it fits notation, which isn’t very often lately; I do enjoy correspondence with one or two very gifted contemporary musicians; I do give any of my scores and recordings away to anybody free; I do help the odd player to get the same constant enjoyment from music I take for granted. So selfish overall ? No, I don’t think so. Different ? Yes, very.

So I am not sure to what degree my personal example can shed any light on a general plan. What is supremely happy for me may not be for you or many others. The only general advice I can dish out is not to worry about “shoulds”, “ought tos”, “rights” and “wrongs” when it comes to releasing whatever music you have within. Make the choice to be happy; claim the right to feel good through music – Aleister Crowley's infamous “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” is actually a pretty good maxim in art.

 

[ted]

I might add that you are more perceptive than most and that the question is not trivial. Yes, for me the sound is everything, not who wrote it, who plays it, what the world thinks of it - nothing except the sound, the moment and its consequences in my brain. If it's any help, I have always been able to see beauty in small things very easily. That leaves open the question of whether I and people like me, are simply satisfied with what the world calls the artistically mediocre. Huxley dealt with this issue very cleverly in Island and in various essays. To transport me probably takes a tiny fraction of what is necessary to transport a first-rate concert artist. Does this mean I am satisfied with practically anything ?  This business of constantly "seeing the universe in a grain of sand" - is it an excuse for not striving, a reason to be a happy pig instead of a wretched Socrates ? And if so, does it really matter ? Why would I want to strive when the gates of heaven open at the touch of a chord ? (Not quite that simple, but you know what I mean).

Your question is both interesting and deep. I tell you what though - I don't think I'll worry about it too much - feeling good is good enough for me (who on earth said that ? Somebody or other famous - can't remember).

[Mayla]

Ted, thank you very much for your responses.  I will admit their content to be quite provocative for me, thus, I am in thought about them.  I am very curious about a few things you mention, however, my thoughts thus far are not currently formed enough to comment more than this in this moment.  Simultaneously, your responses are bringing for me more conclusive thoughts and a sense of peace to previous questions.

Mayla

[bernhard]

I always find myself in agreement with Ted's excellent posts and ideas.

Just to add something perhaps different.

I often find myslef playing for those who are not there. For instance, my last teacher who passed away several years ago. Or friends I have not seen for many years. Very often the actual audience pales and disappears to make space for this ghost audience. Which by the way I am not that eager to play to. (that is, if they were there, I would be probably playing for other absentees, if that makes any sense).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[jazzyprof]

I often find myslef playing for those who are not there. For instance, my last teacher who passed away several years ago.

That's very interesting, for I very often find myself playing for my mom who passed away a couple of years ago.  Perhaps it's not so much playing for her as being reminded of her as I play.  It happens most often with slow Bach pieces like the Sarabande from the French Suite #5, the Menuet II from Suite #1, and the Sinfonia #5.  I get all teary eyed .   Most of the time, however, I just play for myself, even when there is an audience.   

[Mayla]

Ted,

As I read through your posts again, I find myself deeply wishing to dig at almost everything you are "saying".   The more I dig, the more intricate and complex the thoughts become.  Many things become related and it gets difficult for me to address a single aspect without addressing a complexly dimensional figure.   In thinking about your responses, two questions come to mind.

1.  What am I?
2.   How does the "answer" to this first question affect my piano playing?

In thinking on this here:

This business of constantly "seeing the universe in a grain of sand" - is it an excuse for not striving, a reason to be a happy pig instead of a wretched Socrates ? And if so, does it really matter ? Why would I want to strive when the gates of heaven open at the touch of a chord ? (Not quite that simple, but you know what I mean).

I must let myself mention a few things.  As you mentioned of yourself, I also have always been able to easily see beauty in very small things.  I am one who is constantly seeing the universe in a grain of sand, so to speak.  It is not this simple however, as I am sure that you must know.  When I behold these glimpses into the universe, whether it be in a vast panorama or literally in a grain of sand, it is much more than this one thing that I am "seeing".  Just typing these thoughts on this subject in this moment, heighten for me this sense which percieves such things and opens wide doors to deeper creativity.

An excuse for not striving?  I suppose I do not understand the direct relevance.  If anything, these glimpses engage my desire to learn more and they increase my hope to gain in opportunity to glimpse further.  Within every glimpse, there is always a corner that has not yet been turned.  How could one consider this as the state of being a "happy pig" ?  I just truly do not know.

This question, "does it matter ?" is largely unanswerable, although I believe you did not actually mean for me to answer it anyway.

While I do indeed understand the gist of what I think you mean when you ask "Why would I want to strive when the gates of heaven open at the touch of a chord ?", I would say two things. 

1.   I don't think it is a matter of desire as much as I think it is a matter of fear.
2.   You have never stricken me as someone who simply does not strive.

I suppose it is simply about curiousity.  'What happens when I mix Red with Blue?'  My very curiousity will not let me rest on any one thing.  My very curiousity propels me into exploration.  You also, do not strike me as being uncurious.

It dawns on me that if one can glimpse the universe within a thing such as a grain of sand, and if one can easily see the beauty in such a thing...what I am suddenly takes on a different purpose.  If "I" am as a grain of sand by which the universe can be glimpsed, then I suppose for me, "feeling good is good enough for me" has a different depth to it than I would have otherwise thought.  Knowing what "I" am more clearly defines who I am, and should I consider my playing as for "myself", this also has a much different meaning.

Do I want to leave a pile of scores behind on the slim chance some people in fifty years time may enjoy them ?  I don’t think so. Do I want to expend enormous and embarrassing efforts of self-promotion trying to force my music onto people ? Again, what on earth for ?

I suspect there is no logical reason in "earth" toward any subject.  But to me, your last question in the quote just above invites an unearthly response.  For this, there may be reasons.  I for one am quite grateful that somebody decided to write the 48 Preludes and Fugues for reasons that go beyond Earth.  I for one am quite grateful to you for your willingness to have responded to my thread.  But, to what end?  Who knows for certain?


Although my thoughts on all of this are quite unfinished, I have realized something here.  I guess either way, whether I am performing for only myself or for others, it comes down to what it is that is satisfying for me.  In this I think I can do as you say here:

Make the choice to be happy; claim the right to feel good through music

And I thank you for taking the time that you have.  I should probably just go practice instead of thinking about why I am practicing.


Thanks,

Mayla

[Mayla]

I always find myself in agreement with Ted's excellent posts and ideas.

Just to add something perhaps different.

I often find myslef playing for those who are not there. For instance, my last teacher who passed away several years ago. Or friends I have not seen for many years. Very often the actual audience pales and disappears to make space for this ghost audience. Which by the way I am not that eager to play to. (that is, if they were there, I would be probably playing for other absentees, if that makes any sense).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense.  It is very interesting actually because it makes me realize that I have only once played for a person who was actually sitting right there, and it was a very memorable and other-worldly experience actually. 

In your scenario above, where the ghost audience takes the place of the actual audience, I am of course curious as to what happens when the two are one (obviously not someone who has passed away, but perhaps a friend who one has not seen for some time who happens to come for a listen) ?  It seems it would exponentially increase the power of the experience as with what I experienced during that one time I mentioned.  I wonder if it is possible to truly play for an entire actual audience with the same kind of love and consideration one might feel for an individual ?  (Curiousity  ).

Thanks,
Mayla

[Bob]

I guess I've done that too, playing for people that aren't there.

On a slightly different note....  I've also find myself playing as someone else.  Sometimes that has made it easier to get into the piece -- Stop being yourself, be this other person and play like they would.

[ted]

Mayla:

There are two important differences between us, namely that you practise and perform and I do neither. These differences are probably sufficient to account for many things. Perhaps I was being overly abstract so I shall take a specific example to illustrate precisely what I mean by the "grain of sand" analogy.

I find myself moved, transported and excited (I can get excited on occasions !) fully as much, most often more so, by my improvisation and even by the output of my algorithmic composition programmes than by Bach preludes and fugues. Whatever this fact says about me in the eyes of others, particularly musicans, does not change the reality of that fact. In the same way I can be moved and transported by an abstract, organic or natural form (the grain of sand) much more easily than by, say, a structure of architectural form such as a cathedral or a Beethoven sonata.

Now to learn to design cathedrals and write sonatas requires much scholarship and even more rules. What I meant about the happy pig was why would I go through all that grind if the result doesn't do any more for me than simple organic forms and sounds ? Essentially the issue with composing for posterity faces the same reasoning from a different angle.

I cannot imagine what you mean by the words "fear" and "unearthly" in the musical context you use them; I'll have to pass on that one.

I suppose I do strive in a certain sense of the word. I have made several hard and sincere tries to be a wretched Socrates. I took a course of lessons in composition from a leading musician here - a man of immense knowledge and scholarship whom I respected on this account. (Cost me an arm and a leg too !) He simply could not tell me why I should struggle with orthodox, architectural forms when I was so obviously transported by musical "grains of sand".  I asked the question several times and the result was a blank groping for an answer and a request for me to play more improvisation and give him some of my scores (Not what I was paying him for !)

After that episode, about twenty years ago, I haven't bothered trying to learn any formal music. I hope that explains the rather too abstract analogies I was using before.

Cheers,
Ted. 

[quasimodo]

Hi all,

The question "Who do you play for?" might be interpreted by two different ways. Mayla asks it as "specific playing": I take some scores and I play them. But it can also be heard as more general and then become more or less similar to "Why do I play?", "What is/are my purpose(s) about playing the instrument?"

Lately I had a violent controversy with someone on another forum because I were being provocatively pointing out that performing always involves a dose of narcissism. I know it sounds odd, even stupid at first sight. But here is the point: you cannot become a good musician if you are not able to make your own judgement on what you do. Since you’ve decided to walk on the stage and play, let’s say Chopin’s Impromptu N°1, it means that you assume (judge) by yourself that you have reached a level of knowledge of this piece which allows you to submit your interpretations to the world’s hearing and then let people validate (or maybe invalidate!) your assumption that you’ve learned the piece to an acceptable level of performance.

In other words, the audience is a kind of “mirror” which is going to reflect (or not) the initial judgement you had about your playing of your repertoire, which recalls more or less the legend of Narcissi. So my approach tends to consider that a soloist-musician always plays for him/herself, to some extent.

But then comes another point, Narcissi used a river’s water as a mirror and as he founds himself beautiful, he wanted to look at his image more closely until he fell in the river and drowned himself. So, the musician who contents himself with the only satisfaction of being confirmed in his skills by the public is lead to drawn himself in the deep waters of musical auto satisfaction.

Then some higher motives are needed to fulfil musical accomplishment and there are several possibilities: you might perform a piece in order to give credit to the composer, or with a purpose of communion with the audience in the love of music, or like Bernhard and Jazzyprof to the memory of missing or dead persons, or just for the respect of the persons who paid for their seats to hear you play (some kind of customer/supplier relationship !)

[xvimbi]

In other words, the audience is a kind of “mirror” which is going to reflect (or not) the initial judgement you had about your playing of your repertoire, which recalls more or less the legend of Narcissi. So my approach tends to consider that a soloist-musician always plays for him/herself, to some extent.

IMO, the performer should enjoy his/her playing AT LEAST as much as the audience, so yes, I would agree with the narcissim argument, although perhaps a true musician revels in the beauty the music, not so much in his/her own playing (somewhat related, of course, but different nevertheless). If we want to put some phsychological attributes to why a performer is playing for the public, I would suggest the concept of "exhibitionism".

[quasimodo]

IMO, the performer should enjoy his/her playing AT LEAST as much as the audience, so yes, I would agree with the narcissim argument, although perhaps a true musician revels in the beauty the music, not so much in his/her own playing (somewhat related, of course, but different nevertheless). If we want to put some phsychological attributes to why a performer is playing for the public, I would suggest the concept of "exhibitionism".

I agree. But, once again, it should not be reduced to those, narcissism and exhibitionism.

[xvimbi]

I agree. But, once again, it should not be reduced to those, narcissism and exhibitionism.

Of course not. Those are just two of many reasons.

[Mayla]

Ted, thank you for your reply once again.  Mainly, I have just been somewhat enthralled with what I can manage to comprehend as your approach to what you do because there is a seeming purity about it that I adore. 

There are two important differences between us, namely that you practise and perform and I do neither.

Perhaps this brings about an element that tends to shade things differently for me.  (Which is actually part of my whole point).

Thanks,
Mayla

[Mayla]

Quasimodo,

I feel that what you bring up is quite accurate and important.  Everything you present about Narcissi seems to me very relevant to playing/performing in general as well as to this specific discussion.

I realize more now about what this all means to me... and although I find resistence within myself at this moment to say the things I am about to say, I find that I  will say them anyway.

Should one reduce musical creation as well as the "performance" of it to strictly composer, performer, audience -- there would probably not be anymore to be said than what has already been said.  But this is not all it is for me.  Much like life, to me, is not simply that which is seen between the cradle and the grave, although from a very "real" perspective it may appear to be this way.

My angle now (and before) about "who do you play for"  has to do with the deepest issues of life.  For me they are quite related.  'Who do you live for' is at this point essentially asking the same thing.  This for me, is not an entirely earthly question, which is part of the whole issue at hand.

Basically, I feel that I am now mentally grapling with an issue that has dimensions to it.  On the surface, the issue of performing and "who do you play for" appears as  an arguably dry and even somewhat purposeless act and inquisition.  However, there is more about it than meets the eye.  I actually have no idea at this point if I am venturing off into some distant world of thought unaccompanied... I simply cannot tell anymore.

Most easily stated, I suppose it is a matter of the "heart".   In this moment, it is as simple as 'my heart tells me to live, my heart tells me to play, my heart tells me to perform'.  It is built into my very core, I did not put it there.  Now should I fulfill the requests of the heart, deeply I see nothing which is Narcissist about it, nor exhibitionist about it for that matter.  I am simply doing what is built into my very being to do.  It is almost not even a choice after a certain point because the only other option would drown me.  Now, when one takes this out in public, there is of course this surface view which inculcates a possibly trivial aspect of it all.  Much like reducing life to what is seen between the cradle and the grave and all of the details this may include.

I don't think I am making any sense anymore.  And I surely don't feel like I can accurately and justly express in words what it is that I am feeling.... thanks for your time

Mayla

[Mayla]

I guess I've done that too, playing for people that aren't there.

On a slightly different note....  I've also find myself playing as someone else.  Sometimes that has made it easier to get into the piece -- Stop being yourself, be this other person and play like they would.

Bob this is quite interesting actually.  It is a good thing to consider.

[ted]

Should one reduce musical creation as well as the "performance" of it to strictly composer, performer, audience -- there would probably not be anymore to be said than what has already been said.
That's precisely what is so wonderful to me about improvisation, Mayla. It merges that particular unholy trinity, largely of Western historical and social manufacture, into the immediate musical experience of the eternal present, into the awareness of what Elgar called "the other place", what Huxley called a visionary landscape of the mind. It just occurred to me that that might be what you meant by "unearthly"; if so I now understand what you were saying.

[Mayla]

Should one reduce musical creation as well as the "performance" of it to strictly composer, performer, audience -- there would probably not be anymore to be said than what has already been said.
That's precisely what is so wonderful to me about improvisation, Mayla. It merges that particular unholy trinity, largely of Western historical and social manufacture, into the immediate musical experience of the eternal present, into the awareness of what Elgar called "the other place", what Huxley called a visionary landscape of the mind. It just occurred to me that that might be what you meant by "unearthly"; if so I now understand what you were saying.

 

[The Swede]

To all native english-speakers:

Should the question not be:

Whom do you play for?   

/ The Swede, always sticking to the subject

[timothy42b]

So.

(following the narcissistic thread:  play for an audience but be the authority on deciding what is intended and how, enjoy the purity whether they do or not.  I've exaggerated for effect.  Nor do I claim this is profound, I'm thinking out loud.) 

Conclusion:  Everyone who posts here is a fine sculptor, to use the wood analogy.  Nobody is a carpenter, not even a finish carpenter, certainly never a construction carpenter.  Artists, not craftsmen, ever. 

That being the case, there is little incentive ever to play in or for the public.  You all play for the art.  Maybe I am starting to understand.

I however see myself primarily as a craftsman and would rather please a drunken audience or assist a worship service than produce transcendental art experiences.  That does not mean I discount musicality or creativity but changes the focus somewhat. 

Which is within the reach of the average student? 

What did Bach do?  My thought is he played for church services and wrote lesson material, some of which we now think is inspired.  His music was the MEANS to an end and it turned out to be genius; much of ours IS the end. 

[ted]

Tim:

Your post has given me pause for thought. I dislike drink, drunken people and religion, so your particular examples are unfortunate for me. Nonetheless I see clearly the validity of the general point you make, correct me if I misunderstand it, that art should support life and life should not support Art with a capital A, either collectively or individually. Of course I quite agree; life, people and the world are much more important than somebody privately meditating with piano sound, whether upwards to nirvana or downwards to idiocy.

Your example of Bach is also good because he appears to have had no difficulty merging the celestial regions of his own aesthetic with the craftsmanship, livelihood and everyday social activity of his time; in that respect he was very lucky. Creators such as Ives, Delius or Alkan present an altogether different picture.  What inwardly transported them was either wholly or partly incompatible with the social application of craftsmanship.

Likewise, I would assume there exist thousands of ordinary nonentities like me who are moved very deeply by sounds mostly anathema to social interaction. I do not kid myself I am playing for "Art", that would indeed be narcissistic, perhaps an overly pejorative term for this thread. The question was about who I play for and I answered frankly that, owing to the highly individual nature of the sounds which make me happy, I mostly play for myself. I sometimes wish it were otherwise; sometimes I wish I could be satisfied with normal musical channels. But I just do not enjoy them and therefore I must fit my oddities into life as best I can while at all times preserving complete freedom in music. The onus is on me to do that, not on life to underwrite my perversity.

I see craftsmanship per se as being another matter altogether. I am not a musical primitive and I have written all sorts of things in conventional modes of craftsmanship (there will be a few on the Pianoworld CD if you're curious). I try to use craftsmanship all the time. It's just something which builds up over the years regardless of how intuitive you like to think you are.

[Mayla]

I have just hopped out of bed, after having been lying there reflecting on my practice of the day.  I had a big break through today, one that I hope to expand on in days to come.

Anyway, I have been thinking on these words...

Ted:

The only general advice I can dish out is not to worry about “shoulds”, “ought tos”, “rights” and “wrongs” when it comes to releasing whatever music you have within. Make the choice to be happy; claim the right to feel good through music

I think that I was able to do this today.  For whatever it is worth, I simply wish to share how the help which has been provided for me in th